Pushing the envelope on SC duty

The CBI headquarters in Delhi. Agency director Alok Verma has challenged his removal in the Supreme Court

The business of sealed covers in the courtroom should not extend to matters of public importance. And it’s the duty of judges to hear such matters expeditiously

Ordinary citizens understand and can explain their relationship with the leader they elect. Needless to say, though they are aware that it is not a relationship of equals, they know that the leader is answerable to them. They have elected him, they have provided him power. They can express discontent. He had sought their approval, and campaigned and advertised. He will need their endorsement again. He is a ‘public servant’.

The citizens’ understanding of their relationship with the Supreme Court is different. Unlike many other institutions, it is rather difficult for an average person to even enter the Supreme Court. But leave aside for a moment how citizens see the top court. Let us first understand what the great book says. The apex court is both a creature and the guardian of the Constitution of India. It’s not like a mighty emperor regardless of how powerful it maybe. The people of India are not its subjects, they are not spectators. They are much more than stakeholders. The people of India have given themselves this Constitution and multiple institutions, including the apex court, which work within its framework. The constitutional scheme leaves no doubt whatsoever that the court is also a public servant.

When four judges called an unprecedented press conference earlier this year, they did the right thing and reaffirmed the said principle. They went to the public. I quote Justice J Chelameswar’s statement at the conference: “We thought we had a responsibility to the institution, to the nation... I don’t want another 20 years later some very wise men in this country blame that Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph sold their souls. They didn’t take care of this institution, they didn’t take care of the interest of this nation. We don’t want it to be said. So we place it before the people of this country.”

“A responsibility to the nation and “we place it before the people of this country” are the key phrases here. I believe some recent hearings have raised concerns about the safety and discharge of this duty and these principles. Lawyer and scholar Gautam Bhatia has on multiple platforms and occasions expressed concerns about the increasing instances of the court demanding information in sealed envelopes. It needs to be said that except in very rare instances, usually those involving concerns about privacy, the top court has no more right to any information than an ordinary citizen. The government of the day can argue whether or not a piece of information should be made public, but there is nothing in the Constitution that allows judges to access information, especially that concerning public interest (corruption in the CBI, for instance) to the exclusion of citizens. This business of sealed envelopes is, to say the least, disconcerting.

The second issue I want to discuss is the recent hearing in the CBI case. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi became upset because he believed that information which was supposed to be submitted in a sealed envelope had been leaked to news website The Wire. The bench headed by the chief justice adjourned the hearing “for reasons that need not be recorded”. According to reports, Gogoi said: “We do not think any of you deserve any hearing.” Minutes later, The Wire refuted the allegation, saying its report contained details from CBI director Alok Verma’s reply to the CVC, and not the response the court had sought from him in a sealed cover.

The question to be asked is who was the court referring to when it said “we do not think any of you deserve any hearing”. The case before the court is not about administrative matters such as promotion or supersession. It is about allegations of corruption in the country’s premier investigation agency. The hearing, therefore, was not just for Alok Verma or CBI special director Rakesh Asthana, it was also for the ‘nation’ and ‘the people of the country’. The court had a responsibility towards the nation and the institution to hear the matter, especially since it is a time sensitive matter. Verma’s tenure is set to end.

When the controversy broke out, a report in a national daily claimed that multiple files of great public importance are pending before the CBI, including, but not limited to, the allegations surrounding the Rafale aircraft deal. All the proceedings before the court will be a waste if the CBI matter (Verma’s temporary removal) is not decided expeditiously.

I believe that we, the people of India, deserved a hearing. We deserve a court which never forgets the words on the nature of judges’ duty spoken at the famous press conference. I can only hope that the court also believes this. Long live the Supreme Court of India.

Recent Messages ()

Please rate before posting your Review

OR PROCEED WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Share on Twitter

SIGN IN WITH

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.